18 Children Among 26 Dead in Conn Elementary School Shooting

And you're certainly welcome to your fantasy world...

I, on the other hand, will continue to do everything I can...pressure my legislators...press Congress...actively get involved... to move toward a day when assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are taken out of the public domain. I have no illusions about the possibility of success...But that doesn't mean I won't continue to keep trying as long as I'm drawing breath.

LadyJazzer wrote: I, on the other hand, will continue to do everything I can...pressure my legislators...press Congress...actively get involved... to move toward a day when assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are taken out of the public domain.

And that is your Constitutional right to do so whether others like it or not. That is both the beauty and yet the burden we all have.

Allow me to give you this to think about however:

There are those that believe that only military and law enforcement should have access to such firearms but there again exists a very fine line. Most military and some LE cannot take their service firearms to their place of residence, they are checked back into an armory for safe keeping. Now while this may seem all happiness and light to some, please consider the following.

My younger son is in the Army. The wife and I allowed him to enter at age 17, filled out all the proper forms, etc.,etc. He's married now, and he'll be age 20 as of tomorrow actually. Because he's under 21, he cannot legally possess a handgun, even though he's issued one in the Army. What I'm getting at, is while he's "working for the Army" as it were, on their clock, etc., he's allowed to carry a handgun that is issued to him, but he cannot bring it to his home and thusly does not have that as an option for self defense should he be faced with a home intruder. He can and does however own one of the very instruments this discussion is based upon and he can own that because he's legal to own a rifle.

Now in your perfect scenario, where such things are banned/illegal, that would mean that he too would lose that right to be able to defend his home. With all due, respect, he's my son and I'll be doing everything in my power to keep his ability to defend he and his wife.

He's not the only one in that type of boat, the ban would affect quite a few in similar situations. While opinions of opposition are well noted and in some areas in slight agreement, I personally can't understand the logic in taking away a possible means of someone else's potential safety.


Badger

BadgerKustoms wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: I, on the other hand, will continue to do everything I can...pressure my legislators...press Congress...actively get involved... to move toward a day when assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are taken out of the public domain.

And that is your Constitutional right to do so whether others like it or not. That is both the beauty and yet the burden we all have.

Allow me to give you this to think about however:

There are those that believe that only military and law enforcement should have access to such firearms but there again exists a very fine line. Most military and some LE cannot take their service firearms to their place of residence, they are checked back into an armory for safe keeping. Now while this may seem all happiness and light to some, please consider the following.

My younger son is in the Army. The wife and I allowed him to enter at age 17, filled out all the proper forms, etc.,etc. He's married now, and he'll be age 20 as of tomorrow actually. Because he's under 21, he cannot legally possess a handgun, even though he's issued one in the Army. What I'm getting at, is while he's "working for the Army" as it were, on their clock, etc., he's allowed to carry a handgun that is issued to him, but he cannot bring it to his home and thusly does not have that as an option for self defense should he be faced with a home intruder. He can and does however own one of the very instruments this discussion is based upon and he can own that because he's legal to own a rifle.

Now in your perfect scenario, where such things are banned/illegal, that would mean that he too would lose that right to be able to defend his home. With all due, respect, he's my son and I'll be doing everything in my power to keep his ability to defend he and his wife.

He's not the only one in that type of boat, the ban would affect quite a few in similar situations. While opinions of opposition are well noted and in some areas in slight agreement, I personally can't understand the logic in taking away a possible means of someone else's potential safety.


Badger

And I will be right there with you, doing what I can to keep our right to bear arms that includes automatic and semiauto weapons. That is our right to have them. It amazes me how people will do everything(thier right) to take away our rights. By the way Badger we are raffling off an Model 70 .308 this year.

navycpo7 wrote: By the way Badger we are raffling off an Model 70 .308 this year.

Count me in! I want to pass the 30.06 over to Zach because he really likes it, and a Win in .308 would suit my hunting options a little better. :woo hoo:






Badger

Don't worry LJ. The Model 70 is a bolt action rifle. (In a evil military calibre!)

Tanner Gun Show anyone? From what the news has to say it sounds like if you buy you'll get to wait for your purchase and pay for the shipping instead of walking out of the show with your purchase(s) due to the efficiency of the Colorado "rapid check" investigation system.

LadyJazzer wrote: And you're certainly welcome to your fantasy world...

I, on the other hand, will continue to do everything I can...pressure my legislators...press Congress...actively get involved... to move toward a day when assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are taken out of the public domain. I have no illusions about the possibility of success...But that doesn't mean I won't continue to keep trying as long as I'm drawing breath.

Irony? While LJ is spamming her stable of politicians to ban guns senator Chuck Schumer was promising to do whatever he could to Bushmaster execs to keep the company going.

otisptoadwater wrote: Tanner Gun Show anyone? From what the news has to say it sounds like if you buy you'll get to wait for your purchase and pay for the shipping instead of walking out of the show with your purchase(s) due to the efficiency of the Colorado "rapid check" investigation system.

A week long background check! Wow.

FredHayek wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: And you're certainly welcome to your fantasy world...

I, on the other hand, will continue to do everything I can...pressure my legislators...press Congress...actively get involved... to move toward a day when assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are taken out of the public domain. I have no illusions about the possibility of success...But that doesn't mean I won't continue to keep trying as long as I'm drawing breath.

Irony? While LJ is spamming her stable of politicians to ban guns senator Chuck Schumer was promising to do whatever he could to Bushmaster execs to keep the company going.

Oh, you mean the company that is now so toxic that the vulture-capital company that owned them is now dumping it because they probably have a pretty good idea that the company is GOING DOWN....?

Cerberus to sell gun company that makes Bushmaster

(Wow... Complete with a link to the source!...)

LadyJazzer wrote: Oh, you mean the company that is now so toxic that the vulture-capital company that owned them is now dumping it because they probably have a pretty good idea that the company is GOING DOWN....?

Cerberus to sell gun company that makes Bushmaster

(Wow... Complete with a link to the source!...)

The only reason they're selling Bushmaster is because of the shit storm stirred up by the anti-gun crowd against a simple tool.

The outrage is misdirected, IMHO, and the anti-gun crowd is killing a good manufacturing company due to their emotional over-reactions.